Sin taxes

My sarcasm detector must not be calibrated correctly today, my apologies.

I'd consider taxes that make people pay for the consequences of their actions (high taxes on tobacco, alcohol and maybe junk food with the revenue going to public healthcare; well, in societies that have it) would be justified, especially given that there are medical problems that are NOT the fault of those who have them. (Type 1 diabetes comes to mind.)

edited 10th Jun '11 1:33:33 PM by neoYTPism

*point of fact* There is no established causal relationship between diet and diabetes.

There's two types of diabetes. Type 1 is caused by the body not producing enough insulin.

However, Type 2 is where your body develops a resistance to insulin.

There is high tax and cancer for Peasant pleasures: smoking, drinking, shagging, chocolate etc. Aristo pleasures like bankers' bonus and sacking workers are exempt from tax and cancer. They would say that wouldn't they?

"The rationale? You should get punished for punishing us."

Be serious. You're not being punished out of some arbitrary antipathy, you're taxed because your hobby endangers others.

And for that matter, maybe putting higher taxes on unhealthy food could halt obesity, especially if there's a waiver if you can prove that you are neither clinically obese nor obese due to a medical condition, but that would presuppose these laws are about health first and money second.

If, as I suspect, that the preference for unhealthy food over healthy lies in both it's cheapness and short preparation time, driving it out of the price range of the poor won't cause them to eat healthier, just less. Were it accompanied by a chain of 'healthy' takeaway restaraunts at equivalent prices, and if reading a bill from Whole Foods didn't have as much chance at a heart attack as gulping three Double Downs in a row, I might be on board. It doesn't help that healthy eating is still presented as the righteous chore to junk food's sinful indulgence.

edited 10th Jun '11 9:09:15 PM by DarkDecapodian

Short preparation is a legitimate concern, but few things are cheaper than fruits and vegetables. And if you have time for Aunt Jemima's pancake mix, you have time to make it from scratch.

Try again fruits and veggies are expensive fresh. They are ok in price frozen. Try feeding two people for a whole month on a 120 dollar budget then come back and tell me fruits and veggies are cheap.

edited 10th Jun '11 9:18:32 PM by TuefelHundenIV

A) if you buy in season, they're cheap

B) frozen vegetables are still healthier than cheap microwaveable processed crap

C) it's an investment in your health

Also, that's a very shitty budget to have, and I urge you to, if possible, find a restaurant supplier from whom you can buy not-as-perishable things like rice, pasta, or spices and condiments in bulk. You'll save quite a bit of money that way.

edited 10th Jun '11 9:51:41 PM by kashchei

I wish I could take your last option. We honestly try to get as much frozen veggies as we can because unless there is a sale the fresh stuff is to expensive. There is always canned...bleh.

I think a sin tax on soda would be pretty cool. I can buy a 2 liter of soda for about a dollar, OR I can get a 32 ounce fruit smoothie for 1.70$. I like them both equally, but I know the smoothie is better for me and more filling than the carbonated soda. when I do buy drinks, I usually end up getting about 5-6 smoothies, and 8 sodas. anything to close the gap between smoothies and soda's would probably incentivise me into getting more smoothies, and living a more healthy life. that, and the goverment get's their dues. everyone wins.

of course, this is about as progressive as "hey, alcohol is bad, lets ban it!" except replace "ban" with "tax" and... yeah then it's pretty much the same thing.

note that this isnt a made up example, I buy a brand called bolthouse farms every chance I get. their smoothies are delicious!

If that's what you got to do to survive, then that's what you got to do to survive. I would invest in learning preservation techniques to keep your fresh produce longer and to add some sort of variety to your meals.

Already do that. Also buying in bulk when possible.

Why not lower the cost of the smoothie and ditch the it is healthy and hip attitude price gouging.

edited 11th Jun '11 3:26:12 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Because smoothies aren't healthy, they require freezing ingredients and the use of electronic devices to produce, and stores hardly ever use produce that are in-season. The amount of energy put into making a smoothie and selling it to you is not worth the nutritional value they bring.

There was a universe before smoothies, you know.

edited 11th Jun '11 6:45:41 PM by victorinox243

Well, regardless of nutritional value, the contents of your average soda are far far cheaper than what is in a smoothie.

Water, flavorings, HFCS, CO 2. Shipping the bottles probably contributes more of the cost.

My state once had taxes on candy bars and soda. They claimed it was for the "public health". That was bullshit. In reality, only some products were taxed so that others could be sold at low prices. And for some reason, bottled water was taxed too. Even though it's not a soda.

You're willing to pay $1 or more for 12 oz of water and sugar?

That doesn't sound like a sustainable staple for people with limited budgets.

I just get my water from the tap. Or a fountain.

edited 11th Jun '11 11:45:00 PM by victorinox243

12 oz?

That's a can, not a bottle. And likely a refrigerated one, which means you're paying for convenience.

If you buy one without the refrigeration, you get them for less, but have to cool it yourself, or drink it warm.

edited 12th Jun '11 6:31:29 AM by blueharp

And schools are a drain on everyone. Society might be willing to support your spawnling once they prove themselves not to be worthless little shits.

You might also find that majority of society is okay with funding education because if there's one thing that seems pretty universal in countries with taxes going into education, it's that everyone deserves at least a primary level of education.

Sorry, but a public education system is considered to be a societal benefit in most places, that is why funding it is considered a state duty.

If you insist otherwise, you'll have to change a lot of constitutions.

edited 12th Jun '11 9:52:29 AM by blueharp

It's believed to have long-term benefits, once the kids graduate and start contributing to society. Looking at it that way, you might call it an investment.

Assuming the educational system functions as intended, anyway.

edited 12th Jun '11 9:55:12 AM by KylerThatch

"And schools are a drain on everyone. Society might be willing to support your spawnling once they prove themselves not to be worthless little shits."

Ah, and won't that cement the socioeconomic divide if only the well-off can afford educating their children.

Hey, we're shifting the burden onto those who create the costs, I see no flaws with this.